Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for the question, Ms Dowey. I have the letter from the minister right here. I have read it; please give me a couple of minutes to give my response to it.

The Scottish Government’s response to the introduction of my bill was disappointing but not surprising. I strongly contest the minister’s claims about the affordability of my proposals. The Scottish Government has already passed, in this parliamentary session, a bill that sets out throughcare standards for prisoners, and part 2 of my bill would strengthen those provisions for domestic abuse offenders throughout the justice system. Indeed, in her letter to the committee, the minister refers to the fact that consideration of rehabilitation programmes can already be passed on to the Parole Board for Scotland when a prisoner is being considered for release. Therefore, my bill does not propose an unprecedented expansion of rehabilitation assessment.

Similarly, part 1 of my bill, on the register, largely replicates an existing system, but it would expand it to domestic abuse offenders. It cannot be the case that a bill that is modelled on legislation that is already operating in Scotland is unaffordable if the Scottish Government already funds that policy. If the Government is questioning the effectiveness of my proposed register, as it appears to be doing in the letter, why has it not sought to repeal the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which has been in effect for the entire 18 years that the Scottish National Party has been in government?

My bill is fully intended to work with existing schemes such as MAPPA and the disclosure scheme, as I said earlier. In fact, my bill would strengthen those schemes, because it would increase the amount of intelligence that would be available to police officers, thereby allowing them to act to keep victims safe.

On part 3 of the bill, I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government acknowledges that “more work is required” in that area. Although I note that its preference would be to use non-legislative measures to address the problem of a lack of data on domestic abuse in Scotland, the fact remains that the issue has been neglected for far too long. By legislating to guarantee data collection on domestic abuse, we would ensure that the Government took action on the problem.

On part 4, my approach to ensuring that domestic abuse education is provided across Scotland would give schools plenty of opportunity to help to develop standards for such education. Under my bill, local authorities would be required to be consulted, so they would be key partners in delivering on the policy ambition.

Despite the Scottish Government’s scepticism about my proposals, I will make it an offer: last weekend, it was reported that the Government is having to indefinitely postpone the implementation of its flagship Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 because of drafting errors. That legislation was supposed to protect women but, four years after it was passed, it is protecting no one, because it was so poorly drafted that it cannot legally be implemented. Therefore, I offer the Government the opportunity to use my bill to make the necessary amendments to the 2021 act so that it can be fully implemented, to help to protect victims of domestic abuse. I hope that the Government will consider my offer. As I said, I will be speaking to the minister later this morning.

I hope that that answers your question. I have gone through the whole letter; I recognise everything that the minister said, and I hope that I have responded to it.

I think that it was last year—I would have to check.

That is a good question. I mentioned in my opening statement and in my answer to the convener what happens with the disclosure scheme. It is a good scheme, and my bill would be working closely with it and with MAPPA. However, I have spoken to survivors, and I am aware that people who have been domestically abused but do not know about the scheme will not know that they can contact the police in that regard.

Although the police have some—I stress “some”—names of certain sex offenders and more serious offenders, my bill will bring out more extensive knowledge on people who will have to give that information, which the police will hold. That will better protect victims, because, at the moment, they do not know that they can contact anybody. We are making sure that the police contact them, based on the limited information and knowledge that they have. I mentioned earlier that 3,000 offenders would be added to MAPPA. That information will enable the police to act fast. We can save lives out there.

I have been speaking to survivors, and the disclosure scheme has been letting them down. Although, as I said, I respect it and believe that it works, we need that extra layer of protection. Knowledge is key to saving somebody’s life. That is why part 1 of the bill, on notifications, is important. We just cannot let people think that they can rely on saying, “Somebody is going save my life if I have been domestically abused.” We need more information and more knowledge out there, because the statistics are very high right now.

Charlie Pound might want to add to that.

Perhaps I did not put that right. When I talk about knowledge, I am not talking about what they should know about the scheme, I am talking about knowledge of the fact that more information is provided to the police about the offender and the fact that that will cover any change of circumstances, whether it is to do with address, name or many other things, which would allow the police to act faster.

For example, if I have been domestically abused, I am going to pick up the phone and call the police to come to me. We know how busy the police are, and they might arrive quickly or they might not. However, if something is flagged up because of the provisions in the bill, and they have more information and knowledge about the offender, they might act faster, and that might just save somebody’s life.

That information is key. It is not just about people not knowing that there is a disclosure scheme; it is about having that layer of protection. We have the disclosure scheme now, so why are the statistics not going down? We need to ask those questions. As parliamentarians, we have to look at why we are in a position in which all that we see are increases. That is why my bill is important.

I will bring in Charlie Pound on that point.

My bill sets out a provision for education. With regard to what that education would look like, I have said that it would be about domestic abuse. On how it would be delivered and what it would look like, it will be important, again, that the right sort of consultation is undertaken with the right authorities—the right people and the experts—to ensure that the provision is implemented. The onus is on the Scottish Government to ensure that the provision is taken forward—that is why my bill is there. As I said, I am sure that the Scottish Government will be open to consultation in order to shape what that education will look like.

I will start by saying a bit about the financial side. We are talking about a maximum cost of £23 million, which is only 0.5 per cent of the justice budget. In my opening statement, I mentioned that domestic abuse costs the public sector £7 billion over a three-year average period of abuse. We should also not forget, when we talk about domestic abuse in monetary terms, that we are talking about real people. Even one person going through domestic abuse is one too many, and we know that many have lost their lives. The money will be very well spent.

We talk about a figure of £23 million, but that is the highest amount. As we go through the bill, members will see that there are certain things for which we can look at mitigating costs as we go along. You mentioned the costs around part 1 of the bill, but part 1 is essential and important. I have spoken to many survivors—I have spoken to the organisations, too—and not one survivor said to me, “Pam, we don’t need this so-called notification” or register, as one might call it.

Notification is important because right now, to be honest, if I were not a politician, I certainly would not know anything about any disclosure scheme or anything in that respect. I know about that only because I am a politician and I am doing the work. I will describe a scenario that might play out. If I was a survivor and I was experiencing domestic abuse, I would not know to pick up the phone and to look for a disclosure scheme. I would be domestically abused, and the abuse would carry on. Coming from a BAME background, and having friends from other backgrounds, I know that the abuse continues on and on.

Having a lifeline, and knowing that somebody out there—the authorities, whether it is MAPPA or the police—has a little bit more information than I do, might save my life. The notification provisions in part 1 would require that the information has to be provided by the offender. That has never been done before, as far as I know, in any legislation to do with domestic abuse. The offender would have to go into a police station or to a member of police staff to give the information that their circumstances have changed. That could save somebody’s life. I believe, therefore, not only that the bill is a lifeline, but that the notification scheme would give victims a feeling that there is extra safeguarding, and that there is somebody else out there looking out for them so that they will be notified.

Last but not least, the bill could be a deterrent. Who wants to be on a so-called notification database or register? We know that it could act as a deterrent, in a similar way to the sex offenders register.

I have got all that information from my consultations. I went out to do personal, informal consultations: one in 2024, and then the main consultation; the committee has that information in front of them.

I did not take the decision to introduce the bill at all lightly, convener. I hope that I have answered your questions.

Yes, and I will come on to that.

What we are looking to do with the bill is to put that provision into legislation. It would not affect the equally safe strategy at all; if anything, it would work with that.

As I have said, I have spoken to many local authorities—a few years ago, I spoke to 31 out of the 32 local authorities in relation to local government issues, and I still speak to many of them. Not everybody is delivering the equally safe strategy, and there are gaps in what people are getting. In addition, it is not tailored to domestic abuse.

I am sure that members know that, when we provide education on such issues, we do not do so only to those whom I would describe as younger people, such as secondary school pupils. As is the case with equally safe, which I know that you have asked about, we want to help people to identify that domestic abuse is a crime and that it will not be tolerated in Scotland. We want to get across to people the message that if they engage in coercive behaviour or any sort of domestic abuse, they will be committing a serious crime, and to set out what will happen to them. We want to educate them about that.

On the other hand—on the softer side—we want to educate young people to recognise when abuse is happening to somebody else and to understand that it is wrong. That is why education is key. I have heard that time after time from many academics; I recently heard an academic in Dundee talk about how education is key.

You asked about who would deliver that education. My bill clearly states that it must not be delivered by the Scottish Government in this building. It must be delivered on the ground, while listening to the partners.

This part of the bill is very important. We want to put domestic abuse education into statute to make sure that it is available and that there is not a postcode lottery, whereby some people get it while others do not, depending on whether the Government has money. If we put it in legislation, it will be there.

It is important that we talk in particular to those organisations that deal with domestic abuse every day. That could include some education establishments—I have made the provision quite wide. There would have to be consultation, collaboration and partnership with other organisations. The Government could not simply create an education programme.

Absolutely.

I have not put that in the provision. I think that I was very clear in saying that there would have to be consultation.

Once again, it is important to note that I am simply introducing the bill today. People will have opportunities for input. If you feel that what I am proposing should be delivered in a different way or that the bill should be amended, I am quite open to using the expertise of the committee, and I am open to listening to what everybody says.

I will pass over to Agata Maslowska to deal with the cost issue.